should religion be taught in schools? (please read before flaming)

i think that religion SHOULD be taught in schools. NOT any specific 'official' religion, but a general course on the structure of 'religion' in general and to educate on some of the more major religions (history, tenets etc.). of course, a few religions WILL be left out, but i think if you stick to about 8 to 10 of the major religions (or non-religions, in the case of atheism and agnosticism), you'll get almost everybody, and if someone's religion is not planned for discussion, they should provide the class with a few facts on it. of course, i could be wrong and it could just lead to a big mess, but i think that it could help foster tolerance and clear up a lot of misconceptions that people have about other people's religions.

as always, i feel that education is the key to tolerance and respect. my country is a multi-religious country, we celebrate a LOT of different religious holidays from different religions (we have the most public holidays of any country in the world! quite a feat for a small island), we have inter-faith/inter-religious services at all major government functions and, as far as i have seen in my life, have no religious tolerance problems. i realise that we're lucky. perhaps we can do that because we're so small. but, in any given year, we celebrate catholic, protestant, islamic, hindu and orisha religious holidays. and EVERYBODY celebrates them, not just the people from the specific religions. i feel that having religion in general be an open book rather than several closed chapters has helped us to be in such religious harmony.

in a historical perspective ...just as all religions are

It is a highly charged set of dogmas, superstitions, beliefs and emotions that is best left away from public schools. Many teachers would obviously use the circumstance as an opportunity to prosyltize for his/her particulary faith........since of course, "those who are not believers are going to hell".

Thomas Jefferson was a very wise man. The wall between church and state is really very very important, particularly these days.

Why not push for comparative religious education in your church?

Education about religion is part of high school curriculum over here. I remember one of my R.E. teachers was a Christian minister of some sort and was open about his beliefs, but he never tried to tell anyone else what to believe. Maybe it would be different in the US - cultural differences.

I think knowledge is a very important factor in religious tolerance. Many rumours about minority religions go around that spread hate among the ignorant.

with it.

Not all are fundies of course, but there are areas of the country where it is REALLY REALLY BAD.

Trust me on that. It would be abused like crazy.

Hell, they don't even want evolution taught in some of the schools.

Very very bad idea you have.

I have an aunt who became a self-described fundamentalist Christian. She's well-intentioned, but blindly dogmatic. The idea of someone like her teaching religion scares me. The thought of someone like her running your country scares me even more...

Surely there must be states where these people are a minority? America would not be where it is today if most of you were American Taliban.

No signs of the Religious Right over here yet (a few wackos don't count, they have little power except over drug policy). We have our corporate fascists, and our racial obsessives, but I will emigrate if we get fundies like yours...

1. In certain areas they would only want to teach certain types of religion (such as Fundamentalist Southern Baptists) because they believe theirs is the only true way. Others are not accepted.

2. Our kids are doing poorly enough in school, when would they have time to add new curriculum? As it is they are dropping what I think are important skills (the arts...visual, music, literature) because of lack of funding. I think it would be DISASTEROUS to substitute those losses with religious teaching.

3. How would you ensure it was religious history that was taught and not indoctrination.

Separation of church and state must especially be followed in public schools.

If you want your kid to learn about your specific religion, there are other means besides the public school. Lots of churches offer Sunday School, bible study, prayer groups, etc., specifically targeted to kids.

:bounce:

been the excuse for governments to exterminate anyone they please. More people have been killed in the name of "god" than any other excuse. It should be exposed as the "opiate of the masses" and explained that 99.9% of the people in America haven't a clue what their religion is about.

which 'god' were they acting in the name of?

Well in the Crusades (on both sides), the inquisition, the battles during the reformation, and the bloody battles between the Catholics and Protestants in English and Irish history it was the judeo-christian god.

In the struggles to exterminate and push back native peoples throughout the Americas (since Columbus) and in Australia it was the Judeo-Christian god. I'm sure there were other parts of the world where this was true too.

In the constant fighting between Hundus and Muslims in India it was the judeo-christian god and the various Hindu gods (or aspects of the Hindu god, depending on who you talk to).

In the Pogroms against Jews it was (ironicly) the Judeo-Christian god against other believers in the same god. In Nazi Germany most of the Germans who supported the extermination of the Jews were good Christians of various denominations, so consider that the biggest Pogrom of all time.

Milosovich is on trial right now for war crimes in a war between christians and muslims.

The history of bloodshed over the correct sect of Christianity and the correct sect of Islam are legion.

I'm not sure how anyone could have even a cursory view of history without seeing religion as the bloodiest force in history.

My opinion (and this is just my opinion) is that people who don't recognize the blood shed by religions are either uneducated or willfully ignorant.

I'm not denying that religion has good results too, or that there aren't many good peaceful devout people. That should certainly be taught too IF religion is taught in any public context.

BUT, I don't agree with anyone who says that people should only be taught some whitewashed version of how wonderful religion is. Anything as dangerous and bloody as the major organized religions needs to be recognized and taught as such.

You don't teach chemistry without warning kids about how dangerous chemicals can be. The same caution should be taken with religion.

Letting a secular system teach their children the naked truth about what went down in their name is generally frowned upon.

It doesn't matter what you place at the top of the pile. God or the Communist Manifesto. If you declare some position to be the absolute truth and allow none to question that claim people are going to come to harm.

It may often seem the only way to get an idea for peace through to people. But in the end it only creates more conflict. More death. More hatred.

Religions are evolved Dogmatic systems. They have taken shape over time and propogate those systems which are most effective at maintaining control of the message.

Soviet style Communism was a crafted Dogma. An attempt to take what we had hewn out of our understanding of human nature and society and then determining a path that would create the greatest good for the greatest number. It failed. And because it imposed its position it caused untold harm.

Dogmatic systems are devisive. They seperate people instead of finding aspects to bring them together. In trying to force them together they drive them apart.

your kids to take in school. If you are not interested in having them getting to know a particular religion, the parents can select a philosophy class to substitute for the religion class. I think this is a good idea.

Single religion studies can help a little. Some credit should be given for religion classes that help students with memorization especially, also, culture, history, and perspective. (Even if memorizing WRONG culture, history, and perspectives.)

Better to overview several religions with respect for each religion. And, this could include Atheism, Agnosticism, and even Communism, although these three need to be called philosophies lest their believers rent their clothes and gnash their teeth. (I have never encountered zealotry greater than DU atheists.)

No religion should be allowed to preempt another as this would violate 1st amendment right to choose and practice. Certainly some will abuse their position, and some will get away with it, but worse is the intolerance that develops of ignorance.

Finally, I believe as did Jefferson, that enforcing free choice and free practice will eventually create a wall of separation between church and state. But, I would caution that enforcing separation does not lead to free choice and practice; it leads to entrenchment and angry ignoramuses pompously forcing their choices and their practices upon others. And it needs to stop.

I like the thread starter's proposal.

than having single courses for each religion. Particularly in the U.S. it could be dicy because, for example, at my high school, there was 2 hindus, 4 muslims, a few atheists and Jews, and then the rest were christians of one sort or another. If such courses were offered, it would favor the christians almost exclusively and what about those who are other members of minority religions. That would dispaly favortism of Christianity over all other religions, a violation of church and state.

I think it's a great idea, if it's handled as a history or social studies class and no one religion is pushed. Kids would get a broader idea of the history of religion, even if they only studied the Abrahamic religions. We may even see an increase in tolerance--oh my! Imagine! :P

However, considering the atmosphere in our country, there's no way I'd advocate that right now! The fundies would find some way to pervert it and use it to attempt to indoctrinate kids.

BTW, your screen name--is it a Harry Potter reference? My 13-year-old daughter can't wait for the next movie. She wants to marry the guy playing Harry. Sigh!

:dem:

RV

i am an unabashed, unadulterated, adult harry potter freak. i nearly cried because i got my book 5 two days later than the US people and all my american friends were talking about it on messageboards and blogs.

for Christianity, that the virgin birth/resurrection myth was taken from Middle Eastern mythology and incorporated into Christianity...

And I have a feeling this will never happen, that is, they will never teach religions (at least Christianity) in a historical, critical and objective way...

So the answer to your question should be no.


on edit, another example:

The cult of Sol Invictus was Syrian in origin and imposed by Roman emperors on their subjects a century before Constantine. Although it contained elements of Baal and Astarte worship, it was essentially monotheistic. In effect, it pronounced the sun god as the sum of all attributes of all other gods and thus potential rivals. Moreover, it conveniently harmonized with the cult of Mithras— which was also prevalent in Rome and the empire at the time and which also involved solar worship.

For Constantine the cult of Sol Invictus was, quite simply, expedient. His primary, indeed obsessive, objective was unity—unity in politics, in religion, and in territory. A cult or state religion that included all other cults within it obviously helped to achieve this objective. And it was under the auspices of the Sol Invictus cult that Christianity consolidated its position.

Christian orthodoxy had much in common with the cult of Sol Invictus, and thus the former was able to flourish unmolested under the latter’s umbrella of tolerance. The cult of Sol Invictus, being essentially monotheistic, paved the way for the monotheism of Christianity. And the cult of Sol Invictus was convenient in other respects as well—which both modified and facilitated the spread of Christianity. By an edict promulgated in AD. 321, for example, Constantine ordered the law courts closed on "the venerable day of the sun" and decreed that this day be a day of rest. Christianity had hitherto held the Jewish Sabbath—Saturday—as sacred. Now, in accordance with Constantine’s edict, it transferred its sacred day to Sunday. This not only brought it into harmony with the existing regime but also permitted it to further dissociate itself from its Judaic origins.

Until the fourth century, moreover, Jesus’ birthday had been celebrated on January 6th. For the cult of Sol Invictus, however, the crucial day of the year was December 25—the festival of Natalis Invictus, the birth (or rebirth) of the sun, when the days began to grow longer. In this respect, too, Christianity brought itself into alignment with the regime and the established state religion.

The cult of Sol Invictus meshed happily with that of Mithras—so much so, indeed, that the two are often confused. Both emphasized the status of the sun. Both held Sunday as sacred. Both celebrated a major birth festival on December 25. As a result Christianity could also find points of convergence with Mithraism—the more so as Mithraism stressed the immortality of the soul, a future judgment, and the resurrection of the dead.
<more>
http://www.crosscircle.com/CH_2f.htm

I think it is worthy of discussion. I would not teach religion is public schools K-12. There are some very positive things that could come about in a school with progressive administrators and insightful faculty members. But there is a likelihood that in many schools, it would be of a lesser quality experience that, say, social studies. But I think it is not a black & white issue. I do think that colleges should offer classes on a comparison of world religions. If Voltaire is correct that ignorance is the mother of all cruelty (and bush is living proof), than it would be potentially beneficial. I am occassionally surprised with the degree of ignorance on religious issues expressed on even progressive sites like DU.

what is there to "teach" about pre-babylonian myths?

correct me if i'm wrong. my point really is that religion is here to stay, so shouldn't people learn as much as they can about it, about why people embrace it or don't embrace it, and discuss the fundamental good and bad things about it? i just think that knowledge is always better for society than ignorance.

That's the point.

Its about emotional, "your going to hell and I'm not" craziness.

You must not have been to the U.S. recently.

Its baaaaaad over here right now. Really really baaaaaaad.

On the one side we advocate teaching about the history and claims of all religions (or at least a good overview). This is objected to by those that do not want their children exposed to false religions. They may believe that exposure to such teachings would endanger their children. There are few things that can shake faith in ones own particular religion than seeing some of its beliefs mirrored in a religion you believe to be foolish.

Then there are those that wish to only teach specific religions. But this runs afoul of the seperation of church and state clause. For in declaring specific religions as appropriate for public education the government has truly stepped in and declared support for those religions.

Then there is the position of keeping religion out of school entirely. This is flawed in that religion exists within the world. It is a real thing. Whether its claims are real or not is a seperate issue. Leaving children blind to the realities of religion is problematic.

the op was "should religion be taught in public schools". obviously religion exists and it's effect on mankind is undeniable. perhaps my atheist bent led me to conclude that teaching of religion was actually teaching religion as a subject alone. yes, i am an atheist.

As a culture, I don't think it is possible, outside of a graduate-level Philosophy course, to have the kind of interaction and discussion you envision. We have become too polarized.

Surely not in K-12, where there would ALWAYS be some precious little one who'd keep interupting to inform the teacher that "My Pastor says you're going to HELL for saying that!"

And who would set the cirriculum? The school boards, who are now being infiltrated by members of the Fundy "Dominion Movement", as a starting point for their political carreers? Unlikely.

I think that we've become collectively too stupid and narrow-minded to benefit from a course designed to help us be "Informed Consumers" of religion.

so your First Amendment argument doesn't wash. Religious studies programs examine what various religions believe, the philosophy of religion, and the like. They don't proselytize.

As for whether religion is in your opinion a myth or not, that's irrelevant, since religious belief is such a powerful force in the world that anyone who hopes to understand the world needs to know something about it.

attendance at any university is not mandated by law, but it is so mandated for grades 1-12, so maybe you should put argument back in the maytag

which is what the whole Establishment Clause thing is about, not whether something is mandatory or not. Otherwise Roy Moore could have argued that people who didn't want to see his monument weren't required to hang out in the court rotunda.

I agree with you about the history thing, by the way. And I think that our discussion here would be a lot different if the thread header had used the terms "comparative religion" or "religious studies." Being a teacher myself, I know that it's very hard to explain some historical events and cultural trends to people who do not have a basic knowledge of religions.

i wasn't aware of the term 'comparative religion'...and if i could edit now i would. it's why i put the 'don't flame until you read' disclaimer...i was aware that i could be misconstrued if people only read the header.

This thread is an interesting one and the quality of the discussion is excellent.

lies in teaching religion,or in studying the effects of religion in history, mere semantics, i guess, to some,but quite important to me. btw, people are required by law to go to court. i also believe the scotus, in light of recent rulings denying scholarships (of public funds) to those studying to become priests, pastors, etc., is relevant to my point. again semantics are in play here. a course in the study of religion, as i suggested earlier, would meet the requirements of the constitution.

Depends on how it's taught. Certainly the literature specific to some religions is a good topic. The influence of the Catholic Church on European history and the causes and effects of the Protestant Reformation are appropriate. The "philosophy" of the religions would shed light on the reasons why a particular culture made the choices it did over time. I also think it's important for students and teachers to have some idea about the religious holy days and holidays and daily religious obligations of the faiths and their meaning and origins, etc.

One of the more interesting courses I've had at the college level was one in Middle Eastern mythology. Most of us could see the beginnings of the beliefs and traditions of our various religions and the ways that the elements had been borrowed between and among groups since the time when these things had first been recorded... for instance, the way the Egyptian Set had become today's Satan. It was fascinating, and while I don't think any of us changed our religious affiliations or lack thereof, it was a good dose of humility and understanding for all of us.

religious indoctrination.

But no, I don't believe it should be taught in public schools - it is too dicey. If a person goes to college and decides at that age to elect studies in the philosophy of religion, psychology of, history of or other things - or decides to become a devoted student of theology, that is the appropriate place for those options.

as part of the curriculum of many colleges in just the way you suggest. Because it is such an explosive subject, I think it should simply be mentioned as part of history in high school. There is little enough serious study of other cultures in high school and focusing on religious studies I'm afraid would hurt more than help that situation.

We should teach a lot more, and better constructed, history courses in school, of which teaching about various religions would be a requirement. But I'm afraid what would happen is that the courses would be taught from a specific, religious point of view because to do otherwise strongly challenges certain religious doctrines.

Take the flood myth, for example. This comes from ancient Mesopotamia and was later adopted in the Jewish myths. One can't really study the so-called birth-place of civilization without focusing on the impact of flooding and why a myth might develop because of it. But if one takes the Noah story as literal, the more ancient myth can't even exist. And so we have fundamentalists complaining again about junk science and the lack of respect for creationism, and it's just a big ol' mess.

history of religion should certainly be taught in schools, and I suppose some teaching of tennants couldn't hurt. But it should be taught in its proper context as part of a normal history course, not a separate class. And I absolutely don't think that there should be any religious holidays recognised by the state.

I took Asian religions, Middle Eastern History and Religion, Women in the Bible, The Bible in Art, Music, and Literature. It was required, but we could choose which classes we wanted to take. I learned a lot about the world, and it did'nt harm me any.

for real. this post is from a parent that, gasps, ..........parents

no

i want school to give my child math, reading, science, health, physical education, music, art....................

i want the school to get off parenting my child.

saw a thread of the homeschooling, and was long and i didnt get into it, was working on other stuff, but one of the reasons people are fleeing from the public schools, a bunch of people are deciding for us, that since parents arent parenting, we are having to bring all this into school system. i dont want a teacher to teach my little ones drugs, sex, religion, sexuality (i am talking elementary),

i could get into this real deep, having a kindergarten and 3rd grader in private fundie school. i am trying to get them out and into public, right now. has been big "to do" in our household. bushie screwed our public system as governor now he has done as president. texas is ahead in the screwed public school

so no,.............i dont want a teacher spending kids time teaching religion. i will do. mine to do. dont get to take away from me.

they already spend a couple months exclusively studying for a tass test............a waste of learning.

the elementary for grades k-6 have a drug fair. kids go and see paraphanelia and told if see at home call the cops

my prek sat in a class that looked at smokey the bear costume man, in such excitement and watched smokey take a box of matches, pull one out, lite and say fire, bad.

the kids, sat in awe and fascination and in there mind, they said, fire cool look that is how you strike a match.

i told teacher, dumb shit, teach my child to lite a match, now i have to make sure he doesnt go looking for a box of matches.

conclude, we teach children to be kind, and we do that in being kind. we teach respect and acceptance; again, we do that as example. we teach them in our action, not in a class

with you but after reading the rest of your thought I changed my mind and could be open to what you are saying. I just don't think one religion should have preference over another in our public school systems because we all are USA citizens and all of us have a right to our religious beliefs. My husband and I chose to teach our children to be open minded towards other peoples beliefs, to have tolerance of others with different beliefs, to have exceptance of other's beliefs. It would have been fine with us if our children wanted to learn about different religious beliefs because we would have thought they would have been more understanding of others if they understood why that person thought the way they did on religion. What you are saying might be a good idea but you have to remember some people do not want their children to have any influence from anyone who may think different then they do on religion. I personally think people like this people are closed minded.

Whenever Christianity (sorry to single them out but it is the focal point) is set amongst other religions and people are taught it as equal with other beliefs the hardline fundimentalists rise up and demand that it be stopped. There are ample cases of Christians getting a foot hold in some classroom and as soon as another belief requests the same access chaos breaks out.

A prime example was when a Christian bible study group got set up after school. It got set up with no hassle. But then when a group of atheist students requested setting up their own bible study group the school went nuts. No teacher would sponsor and monitor the class until the science teacher volunteered to monitor them via PA system. After it got put in place the Superintendent canceled all after school activities rather than let the group continue.

When the Faith Based Charity funding issue was before the senate the religious right was in full support of it. Until they realised that groups such as the Scientologists and Satanists could request funding. They quickly pulled their support until back room deals were made assuring them that only mainline religions would get access to funding.

Yes, religion and its vast history should be taught in school. An introduction to all the avenues that belief has taken should be made available to students. It is just that there are some that dread the reaction of children being exposed to all these alternate ideas that fight such a course. Unless of course they can manipulate it to say that their particular belief is special.

And when there wasn't an effort to get Christian beliefs mandated into curriculum, you could have courses presented as "This is what this religion believes."

The problem is that the fundamentalist Christians seeking to make their particular brand of Christianity universal don't see their religion as a "belief" or a "faith", they see it as absolute truth. And they will NOT be appeased by the kind of "all religions are created equal" approach that such curriculum would have to have.

I'm for teaching more history in general, and you can't avoid the influence of religion on history or literature or art or music.

For example, you cannot understand Japanese history or literature or art without a grounding in Buddhism and the forms it has taken in Japan. Without Buddhism, your visit to a Japanese temple becomes a matter of, "Ooh, lots of weird statues here" and your reading of Japanese literature becomes, "Why are they doing that?"

Of course, the same is true for Christianity and European history, literature, art, and music.

When the Supreme Court made its decision outlawing mandatory prayer and Bible reading in public schools, the ruling actually contained passages about encouraging the objective study of comparative religion and religious literature.

It is regrettable that more school systems didn't take up the Supreme Court's suggestion in the early 1960s, before the fundamentalists were so strong. I'll even go so far to say that if comparative religion had been widely taught in American schools in the 1960s, the fundamentalists wouldn't be so strong today, because Americans would know that fundamentalism has nothing to do with "original" Christianity.

What happened instead was that school systems and textbook publishers became leery of any mention of religion at all. My father, who had to memorize and still recalled large amounts of poetry from his school days, happened to look at my high school literature textbook and noticed that all the religious references had been removed from poems that he knew.

That's as silly as the kind of censorship that I heard about from high school teachers when I was on the board of a state foreign language teachers' organization. They told me that they couldn't show any foreign movies in which the "good guy" characters drank alcoholic beverages or smoked or had sex with anyone, even a spouse (there goes almost all of European and Japanese cinema), and one of them got in trouble for showing a movie that contained a scene of a sculptor working on a nude statue.

That plague of all school systems from kindergarten through college, the ass-covering administrators (ACAs), decreed that no parent should be offended, and out went frank discussion (as opposed to indoctrination) anything controversial: sex, religion, drugs, evolution, or anything else that pushes people's hot buttons.

This silence on the subject of religion made it easy for fundamentalists to win adherents by claiming that schools were hostile to religion (when they were actually just being chickenshits about it).

So on one hand, you had the people who were already on the righwing edge of religious groups convinced that they were being singled out for persecution, and people in the middle and on the left edge without any intellectual ammunition against the fundamentalists. If you can't teach evolution in science class because the ACAs don't want to offend fundamentalist parents, and you can't teach comparative religion because the ACAs don't want to offend anybody, then the students have no way of defending themselves when fundamentalists come along and say that evolution and God are incompatible.

It really is too bad that comparative religion was not incorporated into history curricula in the 1960s.

If anyone tried it now, it would cause a mini religious war within each school district.

If you don't understand the factors that play into current day events then you are not equipped to make decisions. I would also teach the history of religions so kids can see that they do change and are not static like some claim.

Oh and teach atheism too so they won't get angry and sue everyone. We all know how insulting it is to learn about something you dislike.

we are all going to have all these teachers that are balanced and accepting and non judging and perfectly willing to be allowing in all teaching of religion and non religion, without personal coming into play

like that is gonna happen. not even./ just a big ole keg of powder being lit with this one.

i dont want a fundie, who are also teachers, to be telling my child about religion. i am reasonable enough to know i will then have to sit child down and go thru what the teacher gave him and go on other side just to let the kid see. what about the kid whose parent doesnt sit and go thru it all, they are now in the cult of a teachers religion.

school is not the place. math is

you know how much academic is not being taught our kids. they only have so many hours in a day of learning

and tell your children Nazi's were good people.

I'm not saying we should teach religion, but that we should teach about them. Their history, events crucial to their existance, the positives they've done for the planet and the negative. The class shouldn't teach the rituatls and faith aspects, but the facts so that kids grown up with better understanding of events. They can make up their own mind about which gods they believe and which faith they follwo if any. But history class is too cluttered with other issues to really get into this topic well.

The only people opposed to this are those that either want religion to cease to exist....and they can kiss my @ss...or those that don't want their religions dirty laundry hung out there for all to see.

You know, comparative religion courses are not Conservatively Correct. I remember in my public high school, as part of a history course, we had a Hindu Priest come in as a guest speaker. It was interesting because apparently his major was in World Religions, he outlined the beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Bahai World Faith, and even Zoroastrianism. I found it interesting, and even more impressive considering we live in a majority Catholic area. There is a fine line between indoctrination (THIS religion is correct, all others wrong) and education (here are the basic beliefs of the following religions...). To be honest, I don't know what the beef is with atheists, I find thier theological debates refreshing, and considering that I see nothing wrong with their lack of belief, I don't how that could be offensive.

Nothing pisses religious nuts off more then sharing the 'real' hitory of their faith and teaching about other religions. They don't want anyone to know the negatives of their own, or the positives of the others.

Like I said the only people who should oppose a rleigion course are athiests that hte all religion period and don't want any interest in them created and Fundies that don't want kids to know their religion killed people for no reason.

however, I would believe that it is a defense mechanism that they are employing. I understand it because I am a member of a minority religion and the defensiveness comes up almost automatically. The thing that must be understood is that with atheists, and members of certain faiths, that public schools must be careful not to indoctrinate children into certain beliefs. That is the parent's job not the government's. Most atheists are threatened by percieved encouragement of religion in public schools, while fundlementalists are threatened by exposure to beliefs that are anthetical to their own. I would think that most atheists would actually not mind if their children are exposed to other religions in an objective manner if possible, neither would I mind. However it is percieved as a threat to fundlementalist, and they are the first to cry foul and say that public schools teach "Secularism".

The biggest problem I see with teaching religion is that many will be left out of the curriculum. Religion is a huge subject. I'm also not thrilled with the idea of it being mandatory but I'd be OK with it as an elective...as long as the teacher can refrain from giving his/her personal opinions.

I plan on exposing my daughter to a wide variety of religions when she's older. By the way, one of the best religious sites I've come across is www.religioustolerance.org They have information on just about every religion out there.

i learned about hinduism, buddhism, islam, judaism, christianity and (oddly enough) greek and roman mythology between 6th and 8th grades.

i still got beat up on a regular basis for being atheist, so i think the religious harmony aspect may be out of the question.

No to indoctrination...yes to a teaching of comparative religion.

There are many more similarities between world religions than there are differences.

Also, for some of history to make sense, a religious context needs to be given.

In many ways, our religious traditions come from a set of "universal myths", ways that we, as humans tend to see our world.

Teaching kids that there are many religions in the world and many ways of looking at the world is important in helping them understand the context in history and current events.

Sadly, certain christian fundamentalists would warp any kind of comparative religion curriculum into a "christian only" world view which would, in the end, be more damaging than not having it at all.


In a perfect world, we would be able to discuss religious traditions and history without people freaking out about it.

there is, get this, a religious aspect in religion. one which can not be separated from that which are its teachings and tenets.

if religion is taught in a way other than its intended purpose, which is to produce a religious experience in a person and anchor the "self" in the cosmos, it has little value other than an as an exercise in ancient morality sources.

the latin "religio" aspect of religion, of a "tying back" in religion is not simply a linking back to morality sources, but a linking of the individual's human consciousness, the universe, and that religion's godhead.

what one gets from a secular view of religion is a glimpse of the menu, but not a feast on the meal.

There should be some study of religion in the context of history and social studies though.

;)

is now being cited here as proof that the Berg video is a fake.

.

How would the American public's response to 9/11 have been different if more of us had known enough about Islam to know that bin Laden and his followers are not mainstream Muslims?

the public's ignorance of islam was used to push the message that led the US to war against an unrelated group of people. 9/11 pilots were muslims, therefore muslims are bad, therefore lets go get the muslims!

I think it's an important part of a study of history and literature. We studied "Genesis" in "Myth & Modern Man" and the Gospel of Luke in AP English Lit.

You just can't teach that any one particular religious belief, including the belief that a God exists, is true.